Treeburst155

Hey Tom, I've been trying to send you your files for a tourney game for 36 hours now. Is your email down or is it something on my end? Treeburst155 out.

No hurry, Juha. I just wanted to be sure I didn't lose some mail. Take your time. Treeburst155 out.

Hehehe....I've yet to manage to post an actual image on a forum. I gave up months ago. I did finally learn how to write something in bold font. I hope to be able to italicize in the next few months. So I doubled my samples and increased my accuracy +/- 3%. That will have to do. I guess I would have to do it 1,000 times to really be spot on, eh? I might start going with 400 just to get inside the +/- 5% instead of being just outside. My tests will just take a little longer is all. Think of how many games you would have to play to experience any single matchup 400 times. These tests truly do present new knowledge about CM. Is it useful knowledge? Maybe not, but I enjoy finding out about various armor matchups anyway. Treeburst155 out.

But John, you didn't REALLY attack Holien with rockets. If you did, I'm sure my local city officials would be declaring a state of emergency right now. Treeburst155 out.

Attention Tom Travisano!! I've been trying to send you files for your game with Chuck Rohde most of the day, but they keep bouncing back to me. I'll try again tomorrow. Treeburst155 out.

What possible advantage or disadvantage could accrue from knowing the TITLES of the scenarios?? Especially when many people already have all their games underway. Some have been in possession of all the scenarios since the second or third week. Treeburst155 out. :confused:

Juha, I have your AAR for "We Can't Wait", but I've only got you down as having completed two games so far. Am I missing something? Treeburst155 out.

TEST SEVEN VETERAN M4A3 Sherman vs REGULAR StuG IIIG (late) at 302 meters. Tested 300 times with my new testing scenario!! Sherman survival rate: 36% (including 10 immobilizations) StuG IIIG (late) survival rate: 33% (including 11 immobilizations) Mutual destruction: 31% It appears this is a great matchup. Treeburst155 out. [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Thanks, Brian! So there is a 95% chance that my figures are within +/- 8%. Hmmm...I wish I could do better than that. I don't know if I could stand to run 300 instances of these matchups. How accurate would I be going with 300? Wreck, I'll run some more StuG IIIG (late) vs Sherman tests changing experience levels as you suggest. Keep in mind my results are only +/- 8% 95% of the time. :eek: Treeburst155 out.

We've got some big news from the front! Ari Maenpaa has managed a huge victory over Texas Toast, 82-18. Ari was the Germans. Congratulations, Ari! This puts Ari's average at 74.33, right up there with Fionn's 77.25!! OK Fionn, time to come out of hiding and take on the mighty Ari Maenpaa!! The standings have been updated. Treeburst155 out.

Here's MickOZ taunting me. I thought it was good enough to post. He's the Germans. "Your shoddy tanks, your ill-led men.. Our steel trap will draw them in... Chew your gum and eat your spam.. The Siegfried Line will expose the sham.. You who invade our German home, never fear, you will atone.. You mock our beer and our big brass bands.. but horizontal you shall leave these lands!" He's just received a devastating movie too. I think he wrote this before he saw it. LOL!! Treeburst155 out.

TEST SIX Regular Firefly IIC vs Regular Hetzer at 304 meters. Tested 150 times. Firefly survival rate: 37% (two immobilized) Hetzer survival rate: 43% (three immobilized) Mutual destruction: 20% True, different units have different values in different situations, but I think the majority of games played do not see the Allied turret speed advantage come into play. Too much weight (the points)is given to the faster turret when you consider how often the Allied player is able to capitalize on this advantage. The reverse is true with the HE armor. Not enough weight (points)is given to these units considering how often the advantages of such units are able to be exploited in a typical game. Treeburst155 out.

Well Michael, if you are going to all this trouble it's about time I get the Allied side specific info to you. You know, British, Polish, etc. I'll make a point of working on that. What you're doing is quite interesting IMO. Thanks! Treeburst155 out.

No scenario is anywhere near being finished across all three sections. That probably will not happen before Christmas. When it does we'll have another vote to see if the info is released. I don't see any harm at that point. Treeburst155 out.

Thanks Nabla! BTW, I've been unable to detect any errors in the program's calculations so far. It takes time to verify the program results with a calculator, but I've done it several times and all is good. Treeburst155 out. [ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

BTS has specifically stated in the past that price is base ONLY on actual combat value. Rarity, etc. is not figured in. Only lethality on the battlefield is considered for unit cost. Rarity will be factored into CMBB IIRC. Treeburst155 out.

Holien, You have until January 31st to complete your games. That's roughly 14 weeks. I agree it is probably best not to release any information to Section III. We'll maintain extreme FOW. It was just interesting how all of them finished that scenario so soon, purely by chance. As of now I have passed out 63 games (75%). Eighteen of these have been completed, the largest portion in Section III. Those guys are really moving! I've also received 17 AARs from eight different people. Several of these eight have two or three on record. If you don't intend to write AARs you'd better play very well if you hope to win. The choice is yours.

Congratulations, Fuerte, on your second win!! The standings page will be updated within the hour. It's a good race. Treeburst155 out.

Brian, Balance is critical for the playoffs in the tournaments I'm planning/running. I have in place an elaborate scoring system that takes into account scenario imbalance for the main tournament games, but it doesn't work for the playoffs because lots of games are required to come up with an accurate median score for any given side of a scenario. The playoff scenarios must be as even as possible. I mean, we're talking about the championship here. It's been my experience that most games involving lots of armor are decided by a number of individual armor duels, usually head on. The purpose of my tests is to determine good matchups for these duels. Treeburst155 out.

That is very interesting about the ladder players' records with the various forces. Considering there are hundreds of games in the "ladder pool" I would consider adjusting the point costs if I were BTS. That's some fairly hard evidence things need to be tweaked. I personally gave up on balancing scenarios based on points. I want to go strictly by the unit characteristics that affect the game the most. That's why I'm running these shootout tests. I agree a third MG or an extra 7mm of armor isn't worth adding more than a few points to the unit cost. Coming up with accurate costs for the various units would be extremely difficult to do without LOTS of playtesting. Now, 16 months of 100's of people playtesting later, I think they should adjust the point cost. Treeburst155 out.

Thanks Jason, that's just the kind of stuff I like to know. The Hetzer is a tough one when it comes to a one on one, that's for sure. I'm in the process of running a Hetzer vs Firefly IIC at 300 meters right now. They are dead even after fifty trials. I'm going to start playing the British more often. Treeburst155 out.

I don't know about divulging info across sections to all who have completed a particular scenario. This is a great deal of work. Every time a game is completed materials concerning that scenario would have to be sent to the players. Also, all future AARs and scores relating to a scenario would have to be sent to all those who completed that scenario earlier. It's a nightmare really. I was thinking more along the lines of releasing to Section III the scores of the four "We Cant Wait" games that were played in their section. IOW, just a one time release. They wouldn't get updates on "We Can't Wait" results from other sections. As a section completes a scenario they would get the scores for that scenario from their section only. This sort of update is very easily done from my perspective. I don't want to do it without checking with you guys first because the vote was for total blackout. Treeburst155 out. [ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

With the US only the 90mm tank destroyers, Jumbos and Pershings can take out a Hetzer regularly. Without those you will have to flank 'em or play the British. The Hetzer flank is weak enough if you can get to it. Treeburst155 out.

Captain Foobar, ROTFLMAO!! Treeburst155 out.

I'll put in five. New totals: pledge: $5 total pledged: $25 remaining: $1175 -------------------- Treeburst155 out.